Talk:Flight recorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flight recorder article.
Article policies
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 Flight recorder is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] merge

Oppose. This article is about all types of flight recorders, the other Flight data recorder is about one type. Merging is impossible.


Unsure

This article is also somewhat inaccurate, as there is also flight recording via tracking of data from the transponder outputs/radar. I would suggest that Flight data recorder be the main source - and has anyone checked out black box? Ianguy 11:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no use of the term flight recording except as it refers to the product of a flight recorder. Data from radar records, ground voice tapes, and so on are assembled after an incident; there is no recording of a particular flight other than that made by a flight recorder. If the article was still unclear before, it should be clear now with the addition of a photo of a cockpit voice recorder, that flight recorders include both CVR and FDR. One can not be merged without the other. If someone wants to they can put up a merge tag suggesting combining them all into one big article. For now I am removing the old tag. Meggar 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Support There is both Flight data recorder and Black Box out there, which (at least in Australian english,) refer to the same thing. Thoglette 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging to Black box

Flight recorders are a subset of black boxes. The articles are short, overlap considerably, and link to each other for further information. Prime candidates for merging. I'm being bold and doing this. Chris Cunningham 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. While 'flight recorders' are indeed a subset of black boxes, so are 'event data recorders' (cars), 'event recorders' (trains), and 'voyage data recorders' (ships). All of these data recording devices are generally known as black boxes--'flight recorders' just happen to be the most well known of these (though there has been quite a bit of talk in recent years about automotive 'black boxes'). It makes no sense to turn the 'black box (transportation)' article into what is essentially the 'flight recorder' article, without going into equal detail on the other types of black boxes. If the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder are both types of 'flight recorders', I do not understand why 'flight recorder' should not be a seperate article and have the other two "sub-types" merged into it.
I should also note that, personally, I am also opposed to the existence of the 'black box (transportation)' article, as I feel that links to the different recorders (plane, car, train, ship) should go on the 'black box (disambiguation)' page. There is no point in trying to maximize 'link depth' in wikipedia! -Grammaticus Repairo 23:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Data recovery devices form a particular subset of black boxes in general. It makes sense to have one page which gives a general overview of such devices. I personally think that the shortness of the individual articles at the moment means they should all be merged into black box (transportation). But one step at a time. Chris Cunningham 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
While it does make sense in theory to have a general overview page, the 'black box (transportation)' article, as it stands right now, hardly qualifies as such. The introductory/summary sentence is appropriate, but the second sentence is largely irrelevant (even containing the phrase "this has no special connection with recording devices"). The next two sentences are relevant, though fairly trivial, and the last sentence is just humor. These five sentences DO NOT comprise a 'general overview' of transportation-related black boxes.
In regard to merging all of the vehicle-specific device articles into this one, while it doesn't seem like a bad idea per se, it would seem very inappropriate for AIRCRAFT black boxes (by whatever name(s) called) NOT to have a dedicated article, given their high profile and the importance the public places on them when an airliner crash is being investigated. If all the vehicle-specific devices get merged into this page, then perhaps the aircraft device (whatever it ends up being called) could be listed first (and consist only of a link to the appropriate stand-alone article)? The information about devices for other vehicles (autos, locomotives, ships, etc.) could then be listed below the aircraft devices, each with its own heading.
And finally, it seems only appropriate to me that, if 'flight data recorders' and 'cockpit voice recorders' and 'quick access recorders' are indeed all subsets of 'flight recorders', then those articles all should all be merged into one single article about aircraft black boxes under the title 'Flight recorder'. The names of all of the sub-types of flight recorders (FDRs, CVRs, QARs, etc.) could all redirect to 'Flight recorder'. As they stand right now, there seems to be a lot of similar/related (and duplicated) information spread out over several articles. If anyone thinks this does not make sense, I'd like to know their reasoning... -Grammaticus Repairo 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest I don't really mind exactly what gets merged into what, but the current situation of a half-dozen very short articles which incestuously link to each other and constantly reiterate the same concepts has to change. Chris Cunningham 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There are three articles here dealing with aviation recorders. Just three. There is one on Flight-Recorder about common features and mentioning some sub-types, and one each on CVR and FDR, the two kinds of protected recorders. They are separate but interlinked and somewhat overlapping, that would be because they mirror the situation in practice. Of course there is a different article on Event-Recorder for railroads; different article because it is a different thing. I don’t see where your impression of a confusing array of many articles could have come from. Please explain. Meggar 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
See the series of past merge requests. I'm not seeing any justification there for keeping them as separate, very short, articles rather than merging into a single comprehensive one which doesn't force people to click links and read the same thing over and over again to get the same amount of information. The concepts overlap sufficiently that there's good justification for a merge. Chris Cunningham 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
So you still perceive an excessive number of small articles and can not see a justification for keeping them seperate. I still count three. Could it be rephrased that you can not differentiate between a lot of devices that are unlike? You are just joking of course to suggest that everyting that you imagine to be the same must be lumped together. There is nothing wrong with a little kidding, but evertually one needs references here. You must have a dooser of a reference up your sleave to counter all the definitions in all the doucuments published by all the agencies who define these things. Meggar 05:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There are six articles linked from black box (transportation). These devices are not so unlike that they need separate articles. From a stylistic point of view it is far better not to inconvenience both readers and editors by splitting articles into microscopic parts for the sake of some perceived purity of definition. Once again, please actually provide this justification instead of simply referring to it. Chris Cunningham 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extensixe redirecting and merging without discussion

Those are some stong opinions, but they are not a discussion. Many people have contribted their thoughts and work to these pages, some with knowlege of rail and air use of recorders, some lay people. They are all important. The opinions of lay people without actual contact with the subject are very important in helping to adjust articles to get across some difficult ideas. I am reseting this, and hope to talk with you as we research this topic further. Meggar 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of WP:OWN#Comments. So far I haven't seen a single actual justification for the revert, and there has been considerable discussion of potential merges. I don't really care enough about the subject to get into a revert war about it, but if no actual commentary opposing a merge appears soon I'm going to re-merge the pages. Chris Cunningham 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Followed through on this. Chris Cunningham 11:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)